Most of the authors or speakers in the book go to great lengths to explain exactly why they 'accidentally' witnessed atrocities. Why do you think establishing a banal rationale for being in the wrong area at the wrong time was so important to these people, decades after the events they described?

Most of the documents in the book that present objections to genocide do not object to the actual fact of genocide, but rather the methodology in which it was carried out. In other words, many of the speakers seem to infer that genocide per se is not bad as long as it is carried out in an organized fashion. Why do you think the disorder of mass murder was so objectionable to so many people?

Many of the speakers or authors in the book particularly object to the mass murder of women and children. Is it...